So you're saying that reports of the company getting millions in breaks out of the deal are false?It was not a bribe; it was negotiating by a master business man.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So you're saying that reports of the company getting millions in breaks out of the deal are false?It was not a bribe; it was negotiating by a master business man.
It is mostly a symbolic act.Let's be optimistic and idealistic and assume that Trump did this all by himself, nobody was bribed and this was pure merit for him and for the USA. Trump saved 100 jobs, fair and square.
Then, let's put this in context:
Assuming 157 800 000 people workforce (2015 in USA) that would mean that he tuned the unemployment rate down by 0,000063 %
If during his 4 years in office, he makes every single day a similar, succesfull deal, and spends his time doing them, that would mean his actions would improve the employment rate by 0,0009252%. That is, assuming everything else stays the same and no other factor changes anything.
How that would compare to Obama's 4 years?
It is mostly a symbolic act.
Symbolic acts can actually be powerfull, inspiring and meaningfull, but only when they are backed up with real action on a more fundamental level.
Indiana already offered them tax breaks and it didn't work. The election changed everything with the threat of federal contracts potentially being removed.I thought it was the state of Indiana bribing them with $7 million dollars which did that. Trump is president elect, not emperor of Indiana last time I checked.
But given the multiple stories (and multiple different versions of how many jobs are staying or going and from where) who knows who is telling the truth. Oh wait, given Trump's spotless record on honesty I'm sure we can just accept what he says.
So you're saying that reports of the company getting millions in breaks out of the deal are false?
I’m saying that President Elect Trump made it perfectly clear that there would be dire consequences for American business leaving and going offshore.
Based on your assumptions ("...everything else stays the same and no other factor changes anything"), better than Obama. Obama did no such thing.Let's be optimistic and idealistic and assume that Trump did this all by himself, nobody was bribed and this was pure merit for him and for the USA. Trump saved 100 jobs, fair and square.
Then, let's put this in context:
Assuming 157 800 000 people workforce (2015 in USA) that would mean that he tuned the unemployment rate down by 0,000063 %
If during his 4 years in office, he makes every single day a similar, succesfull deal, and spends his time doing them, that would mean his actions would improve the employment rate by 0,0009252%. That is, assuming everything else stays the same and no other factor changes anything.
How that would compare to Obama's 4 years?
What are employment rates now compared to at the start of Obama's first term?Based on your assumptions ("...everything else stays the same and no other factor changes anything"), better than Obama. Obama did no such thing.
Irrelevant. Please pay attention to the "assumptions" that were made by Jack of Spades, especially the quote of mine you responded to. Because that was part of the exact quote of his that I was responding to. Overall employment rates were excluded ("no other factors").What are employment rates now compared to at the start of Obama's first term?
Uh-huh.Irrelevant. Please pay attention to the "assumptions" that were made by Jack of Spades, especially the quote of mine you responded to. Because that was part of the exact quote of his that I was responding to. Overall employment rates were excluded ("no other factors").
Not the threats part, the bribes part.Why is threatening their federal contracts crony capitalism?
It would seem the crux of the deal was indeed the federal threats part though, when the state of Indiana was already offering them the same tax incentive package for months.Not the threats part, the bribes part.
Crony capitalism is a term describing an economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, or other forms of state interventionism.
As Andy Borowitz puts it, satirically:
[Trump] raised the cautionary example of Carrier Corporation, which this week decided to keep a few hundred jobs in the U.S. in exchange for a seven-million-dollar government incentive....
In a parting shot, Trump warned companies that he was prepared to back up his tough rhetoric with even tougher action. “I will bribe you so hard, your grandchildren will get paid,” he threatened.